Professional flatbed scanners?

[bglick]

> Evolution or revolution, the photographic industry has not been static for 150 years. The changes are numerous and often.

Gordon.... I think its obvious that photography has changed over 150 years......... but this has nothing to do with my point....

Find me a 10 year chunk of time that has had such incredible advances vs. the 2000 - 2010 era in photography? And not only did photography advance in this era, it nearly completely replaced the technology of chemical based photography, ...then add in digital processing, digital printing, the ease of super LARGE PRINTS, a plethera of new inks and papers, and most all of these new technologies can be implemented by the home based hobbyist, vs. big-time photo labs with highly specialized equipment.....

anyway, we can agree to disagree on this....

[bglick]

> On the other hand, the quality possible from a good scan of a 6X7 or 6X9 Tmax-100 or Acros B&W negative can not be touched by any DSLR.


Sandy.... this is a good point.... quite often, many of us make statements and tend to leave out the film type being considered. B&W film such as Tmax is much superior to chrome film in its ability to resolve... this point is often overlooked when comparing scanned film to digital capture. With greater resolution, you do need better scanning equipment to extract all the detail (assuming you need it all).

Previously I mentioned the Minolta MF scanners producing files as healthy has Howtek files....but this was only for color chrome and color negs. I do agree, Tmax will supersede this scanners capability...., and might supersede a 4000 ppi drum scanner. The Howtek 8000 would be a more appropriate scanner for Tmax.

[Gordon Moat]

> . . . . .

Find me a 10 year chunk of time that has had such incredible advances vs. the 2000 - 2010 era in photography? .....

anyway, we can agree to disagree on this....

Well, I guess we just disagree then. The great revolutions happened before my time (except the SX70), and probably before your time too. That we see this now perhaps makes it more prominent. Digital imaging is much beyond 10 years too; take a look at the patent on the Bayer pattern, early still video cameras, or even what year saw the introduction of PhotoShop 1.0 . . . . maybe it only seems like ten years.

The first somewhat affordable D-SLR was the Nikon D1, and that was less than ten years ago. Sometimes it might seem that these things have been around a while, though I run into people who think PhotoShop only recently appeared on the market, or who think things possible in PhotoShop today were not possible in earlier versions (which anyone who has worked with it long enough know is simply not true).

I think the pace of change was certainly greater in the late 1800s, though we should consider that in the context of those times. Communication was much slower, movement of knowledge was slower, and even getting from one place to another was slower. Read a little about George Eastman, and you will find your first ten year revolution that drastically changed photography.

Anyway, the reality I see in comparing scans and direct digital capture misses one important fundamental aspect. If we were to stand at the same scene as in many photographs, the amount of detail we would notice with our eyes would be less than what we could find in a piece of film, scan from that film, or from a digital capture. All these devices are better than human vision. I think that makes judgements easier, in that these things only need to be better than us . . . and not better than each other.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[bglick]

I agree digital capture started prior to 2000, hell so did PS, I think it was first released in 1990. However, it took time till Wall Street money got behind all the hardware and software vendors.... so IMO, the industry did not really surface to prosumer level till about 2000 when Canon rocked the world with the D30?, at 3MP. By this time, digital was in full swing, including film scanners....

I was not demonstrating that digital started in 2000, but this is about when it start appearing to be a real competitor to film. Then, it was like a snowball rolling down the hill, every year you looked, you just could not believe how big the ball became.

Your point is valid regarding how difficult developing anything was in the late 1800's with limited communications, sharing of knowledge, no computers, lack of capital vs. todays massive companies, etc. But this is the times we live in, and is part of the reason for such remarkable advancement.

> Anyway, the reality I see in comparing scans and direct digital capture misses one important fundamental aspect. If we were to stand at the same scene as in many photographs, the amount of detail we would notice with our eyes would be less than what we could find in a piece of film, scan from that film, or from a digital capture. All these devices are better than human vision.

A bit over generalized.... of course, if we all shot 16x20 film, with good lenses and technique, and viewed the film on a light-box, I would agree....but when you enlarge, you continually reduce the resolution, of course, at some point, less than what humans can resolve. Plus, you must consider the FOV we take in while viewing the real scene.... But regardless, many of us, are captivated by this desire to produce a "look" that is sharper than what we would have seen in person. It's a bit of an addiction to some of us, to state it mildly :-)

[sanking]

Previously I mentioned the Minolta MF scanners producing files as healthy has Howtek files....but this was only for color chrome and color negs. I do agree, Tmax will supersede this scanners capability...., and might supersede a 4000 ppi drum scanner. The Howtek 8000 would be a more appropriate scanner for Tmax.

Although it is a fairly old piece of equipment the Leafscan 45, which will allow scans of 3cm X 12.7cm at 5080 ppi, gives very impressive results with MF negatives if you can live with two pass and stitch scanning. Effective resolution is about 93% of stated, which puts it at about 4700 ppi *effective*.

Caveats are that the equipment is, 1) quite old and hard to find in perfect working condition, and 2) dynamic range is only about 3.7, and 3) it is fairly slow in RGB.

For less critical needs you can always scan MF negatives with the Leafscan 45 at 2540 ppi in one pass. And of course, if you have one of those panoramic adaptors for MF formats cameras the Leafscan 45 works well for you in that it scans the 3cm X 12.7cm strip at 5080 ppi.

Some people have used the Leafscan 45 for scanning 4X5, but I don't recommend it for that purpose since you have to do two pass and stitch scanning to even get 2540 ppi, which makes it not much better than the Epson V750 for the 4X5 format.


Sandy King

[Rob_5419]

It has most to do with the size you are enlarging to, but also the degree of output. For example, take the digital camera world and you have a point and shoot camera vs. the camera being discussed above (Canon 5D). Point and shoot will give a nice clean image to a certain size. 5D will give a cleaner file from the get go, but noticeable differences will not be there until you get to a certain print size. At least that's my understanding of it all.

Thanks Audio -

I think the digital files from a 5D are exactly why I shoot with film. I don't like antiseptic sterility when it comes to aesthetics.

So I'm hunting for as scanner.

It seems that the scanners with higher Dmaxs are more expensive, even if they don't do particularly large negatives (A4). Still seems to be a huge variation in cost between the scanners and a lot of useful information, white noise, disinformation, just noise, and genuine insights.

Unfortunately I don't have the skill to unpack which is what. I wish I could find a simplified comparison of the specs, user profile for people who buy certain scanners to make a decision. By the time I read up on a scanner, a new one comes out, and then it's back to square one, trying to understand it all again..

[Doug Dolde]

Buying a Leafscan is just asking for trouble. I know from experience. Don't do it. Seriously obsolete piece of hardware.

[sanking]

Buying a Leafscan is just asking for trouble. I know from experience. Don't do it. Seriously obsolete piece of hardware.

The same could be said for any number of old drum and high end flatbeds. However, I bought a used Leafscan 45 several years ago and it is still working like a charm. I have not had any trouble with it at all, and I use it both with MAC OS 9.2.2 and the Leaf 2.2 plugin for Photoshop, and with MAC OSX and SilverFast AI. Slow, yes, but superb results. And I know quite a number of people who are still using their Leafscan 45 with no problem. Course, when I bought mine I picked it up from a regional seller and knew it was working from the start.

Like most professional scanning equipment such as drum and high end flatbeds, there is a very big risk in buying vintage scanning equipment. Many people buy older scanning equipment on ebay and expect it to work, and wind up very disappointed.

I am not suggesting that anyone buy a Leafscan 45, or a used drum scanner, or a used high end flatbed. But if you want a scanner for under $1k that will scan 35mm at an *effective* resolution of 4800 ppi, and MF at the same resolution if you scan in two passes and stitch, the Leafscan 45 can do it. For these formats it gives performance beyond my Creo EverSmart Pro. To put this in perspective, *effective* resolution of 4800 ppi is not possible even with a Howtek 4500 drum scanner. To do much better you have to go to a Howtek 6500/7500.

The Leafscan 45 is indeed an old piece of equipment, but not obsolete where I live.

Sandy King

[audioexcels]

Thanks Audio -

I think the digital files from a 5D are exactly why I shoot with film. I don't like antiseptic sterility when it comes to aesthetics.

So I'm hunting for as scanner.

It seems that the scanners with higher Dmaxs are more expensive, even if they don't do particularly large negatives (A4). Still seems to be a huge variation in cost between the scanners and a lot of useful information, white noise, disinformation, just noise, and genuine insights.

Unfortunately I don't have the skill to unpack which is what. I wish I could find a simplified comparison of the specs, user profile for people who buy certain scanners to make a decision. By the time I read up on a scanner, a new one comes out, and then it's back to square one, trying to understand it all again..

Well...someone already said that Digital can be made to look the same as film...in other words, with a smaller print sizes, the film "look" doesn't even play a role in anything since it looks no different than a print from the 5D and should be for any digital camera for that matter.

I'd be interested to hear from more that can manipulate digital files to look like film shots...if digital looks like film, we may as well have adapters made so that we can retrofit bellows to the 5D and have the movements of LF in order to have the same look of film up to a certain enlargement size.

[Peter De Smidt]

Well...someone already said that Digital can be made to look the same as film...in other words, with a smaller print sizes, the film "look" doesn't even play a role in anything since it looks no different than a print from the 5D and should be for any digital camera for that matter.

I'd be interested to hear from more that can manipulate digital files to look like film shots...if digital looks like film, we may as well have adapters made so that we can retrofit bellows to the 5D and have the movements of LF in order to have the same look of film up to a certain enlargement size.

Sounds like a topic for a new thread.